On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 07:56:08PM +0530, Kannan, Vandana wrote: > > > On 15-Dec-14 7:46 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 04:25:32PM +0530, Kannan, Vandana wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 15-Dec-14 3:17 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>>On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 02:22:57AM +0530, Vandana Kannan wrote: > >>>>Adding i915 module parameter for setting drrs_interval. If this param is > >>>>set to 0, then drrs is disabled. If changed in runtime, then the new interval > >>>>value will be considered for scheduling the next drrs work. > >>>>drrs_interval is set to 0 by default, i.e. DRRS is disabled by default. > >>> > >>>Nope, please don't hide power saving features behind module options by > >>>default. New stuff must be enabled by default, otherwise it'll bitrot and > >>>merging to upstream is fairly useless since we still have the rebase pain > >>>(just spread out over more people) with none of the testing. > >>ok.. so, shall I just make the delay (drrs_interval) fixed at 1 second > >>or let user set this delay at runtime through the same module param > >>(excluding the disable feature if interval is 0 part) ? > > > >Imo we should just set an optimal value (does vbt have any hints?). > > > VBT does not contain a delay value.. > Based on data collected from testing so far, 1 second seems stable.. > Maybe it can go down to 800ms or so - I can test it out.. > Anything as low as 100ms just triggered too many RR switches back and forth. There's not need imo to go to the lowest possible value, there's always a tradeoff. 1s sounds good (psr has even worse timeout on some panels ...). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
